Rep. Joshua Peters v. Rachel M. Johns

On April 1, 2016, Rep. Joshua Peters (D-St. Louis) filed a petition challenging Rachel Johns’s standing to run as his opponent in the 76th District’s Democratic Primary Election on August 2, 2016.

On April 1, 2016, Rep. Joshua Peters (D-St. Louis) filed a petition challenging Rachel Johns’s standing to run as his opponent in the 76th District’s Democratic Primary Election on August 2, 2016. Ms. Johns’s candidacy was challenged on the grounds that she did not meet the State’s definition of a “qualified voter” because, while eligible to vote, she had not been registered to vote for at least two years before the November election. Ms. Johns did not register to vote until February 4, 2015 as an expression of political protest. As such, she believed that her decision not to register should be considered protected speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The ACLU of Missouri filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Johns, arguing that a clear distinction should be made between a “qualified” and “registered” voter, and that the terms should not be used interchangeably. The brief urged the court to respect the definition of a “qualified voter” as someone who possesses all the qualifications required of a voter (e.g., meeting the requisite age, residency, and competency requirements). In other words, the ACLU argued that, the phrase “qualified voter” in Article III, section 4, of the Missouri Constitution should be construed as meaning any individual who possesses the constitutional qualifications to vote, and it should not be construed as a substitute definition for an individual who is a “registered voter.”

In filing this brief, the ACLU continues its tradition of challenging voter-registration requirements that unconstitutionally restrict participation in the democratic process.

Update: May 23, 2016: The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in Rep. Joshua Peters’s favor. A dissenting opinion was also filed.